>I misread the original post. I thought we were talking about paralleling the grounded conductor and an equipment grounding conductor.
From the service main to the utility transformer "a second grounded conductor" is basically indistinguishable from that given that bonding is required in the main.
So long as no one has a problem with parallel grounded conductors I'm happy. I hope Mike is satisfied that this is a good requirement that the utility has imposed on him.
Because of the skin effect reducing ampacity for high frequencies, the day may come when neutrals are routinely specified as two smaller diameter parallel conductors. Don't be surprised if you live to see noise suppression for neutrals as a requirement.
>the link is describing an 'upsized' noodle, not a parallel one
I disagree. Regardless, they are roughly equivalent, parallel being somewhat superior.
I regularly implement 200% neutrals as parallels of the same gage, e.g. #10 or #12.
I have never interpreted specifications for double neutrals as meaning that I should a single #6 instead, which would, I think, somewhat defeat the primary purpose, which is to haul away high frequency noise.
Dspark, If it is a grounding conductor and not a neutral, then it will most likely not be of the same size. If the 2 conductors are of unequal size and joined at both ends it would be a violation of 310-4 Don(resqcapt19)
>If the 2 conductors are of unequal size and joined at both ends it would be a violation of 310-4 But how about two conductors of equal size, e.g., two #10 wires?
I read the post about parallel grounding conductors again. The electrician said the utility was going to pull an equipment grounding conductor from the transformer to the 2000 amp service equipment. The post didn't say if the EGC and grounded conductor are physically the same size. Is that a code violation?